Genesis 1 and 2: The Difference Between Created and Formed

In the Bible there are a few more kinds of beings than human beings. Like angelic beings and demons.Since His major concern from Genesis 1 is with human beings, previous dealings involving other kinds of beings are not His priority.There are indications of other dealings with other kinds of lives elsewhere in the Bible. To get into that would be off topic.I think God was careful in the use of BARA and ASAH. That is what I wish to emphasize in this thread.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Whatever God did, the sunlight was severly effected. Am I right?
What appeared to any observer on earth in Pharoah's Egypt was that something was seriously wrong with the sunlight. Whether the effect was caused in the sun itself or in the upper atmosphere, we don't know. Is either too hard for God?Job, the oldest of books in the Bible, speaks this way some past judgment of God upon creation:"The Wise in heart and the Mighty in strength,
Who hath defied Him, and remained unhurt?
Who displaceth mountains, and they know not
That He overturn them in His wrath;
Who maketh the earth to tremble out of her place,
So that her pillars rock to and fro;
Who commandeth the sun, and it riseth not,
And sealeth up the stars." (Job 9:4-7)If some terrific convulsion by which the earth was shattered is being discribed by inspiration in Job, the sunlight and the starlight is seriously impaired, let alone the features of the earth's surface. The extinction of the sun is plainly indicated in the verse. And also the veiling of the stars, so that the thick darkness enveloped the sky.Interesting enough, right after Job 9:7 discribes the darkening of the sunlight and the sealing of the stars, in the next verse 8 it says:"Who alone stretched forth the heavens and trod upon the heights of the sea; Who made the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades ..."Don't we have here a passage discribing the blackening out of cosmic lights and the reformation of them afterwards? Perhaps we do. But if time sequence is not being communicated in Job at least the ability of God to blacken the sunlight and seal the stars show that if the condition of "without form and void" was the result of divine judgment, the repair of sunlight and the re-appearing of other cosmic light holders including the sphere of the sun, on the fourth day make perfect sense.Concerning the two words discribing the earth in Genesis 1:2 Mr. Pember contributes: Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : typoEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Arach,Job writes God - "Who commandeth the sun, and it riseth not,
And sealeth up the stars." (Job 9:7).Now this event could have been previous to Genesis 1:2 after God "created the heavens and the earth" (1:1) and before the seer of Genesis saw the earth "without form and void"(1:2). It was not the burden of the Spirit to elaborate on divine judgment in Genesis as it was His concerned with the world being prepared for man's existence.But focus and priorities can govern when and where the Bible provides us information. In Job it is the appropriate time for the matter of the sealing of the stars and the commanding of the sunlight to cease, to be mentioned to underscore not only God's great creative power but His judgmental and destructive power as well.So only a hint of judgment we see in Genesis 1:1,2 and a further elaboration in Job 9. In fact historically many believe that Job was written before Genesis was. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

How was the last light not in the firmanents - both of them?No ”light bearers” are mentioned previous to this verse - ”And God said, Let there be lightbearers in the expanse of heaven to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years”However previous to the fourth day there have been three days in which the seer saw evening and morning three times. I don’t know how he could have noticed ”evening and morning, one day” (v.5), “evening and morning, a second day” (v.8), and “evening and morning, a third day” without the expanse below and the expanse above alternating in light glow. Do you?If you say that only the firmament below grew dark and then light without it effecting the appearance of the firmament above, that doesn’t make much sense to me. So some common sense I apply as you do with the prepared meal not being out of thin air. The glow of diffuse light obviously effected the firmament below as well as the firmament above.Also, when you want to talk about the plain meaning of the text, you should notice the separation of day and night has already been arranged on day # 1: “And God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness, And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.” (vs. 4,5) So when on day the fourth God’s action with ” . lightbearers, to separate the day from the night” is a repetition of something He has already accompished on the first Day.Day from Night has already been separated as concerning light. Then Day from Night is separated again concerning lightbearers. The common sense that you apply to the ASAH in preparation of a meal, I apply to ASAH in the fourth day yeilding more clearly lightbearers continuing the separating of Day and Night.If you say “Be more litural to the text. God created the sun, moon, and stars to separate the Day from the Night just like it says in verse 14.” I would say that He already created something to separate the Day from the Night in verses 4 and 5.If you say “Be more litural to the text. God created the sun, moon, and stars to separate the light from the darkness in verse 18.” I will say that God already had a way to separate the light from the darkness in verse 4.If you say “Be more litural to the text. God created the sun, moon, and stars on the Fourth Day to set them in the expanse above.” I will say that this possubly means that the seer perceived the existence of these lightbearts on that day rather than that God created them. Elsewhere the Hebrew Scriptures say ”The burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel. Thus declares Jehovah, who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him” (Zech. 12:1) It is hard to imagine God stretching forth an empty expanse where there is nothing and was nothing. It is easier to imaging God stretching forth a heavens filled with hosts and then laying the foundation of the earth.The same common sense you apply to ASAH in the preparation of a meal we can apply to Genesis in the preparation of lightbearers in the sky to act as signs for seasons and characterize the night and the day. Is it so hard to understand that the prophetic seer did not recognize that the source of the diffuse light was a specific lightbearer - the sun, until the fouth day? Is still then a true statement that on that day God set the sun in the heaven to give light on the earth.It also not hard to imagine that the Spirit of God directed the prophetic writer to use another word besides BARA for this action, namely ASAH. If the Creator God directs and designs interactions of atom which take millionths of a second why would He be less careful in the communicating of His oracles to humans in human language? I’m not blaming you for anything. I’m just pointing out that you have your opinion about it with which I disagree. Namely the usage of BARA and ASAH in Genesis. Light without lightbearers communicates to me as a general light. That is a kind of general glow from an undetected source. I believe that the Spirit of God used precision in the different Hebrew words for a purpose.The words BARA, ASAH, and YATZAR have different shades of meaning. The third word means to shape, or mould, as a potter does the clay (Genesis 2:7). A certain Rabbi Nachman delcalres that no other word beside BARA in Hebrew would convey calling into being without the aid of pre-existing material. But another Hebrew reader points out that the word is not a verb confined to that meaning only. And ASAH signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.There are two acts of creation mentioned in the history of the six days after the statement that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning in 1:1. First the inhabitants of the waters and the fowls of heaven. These do not consist merely of the material mould of their bodies, but have a life principle within which could be conferred only by a direct act of creation (Genesis 1:21). So the change of the word makes sense. In the second instance is the creation of man, though we are told that his body was formed from the dust (Genesis 1:27; 2:7). The real man is the soul and the spirit of man. The outer casing of his body gives him the power of dealing with his present surroundings. This part of him was taken from the earth and with the earth and its materials his body is destined to live.All three verbs are used in Isaiah 43:7:”I have created him for my glory; I have formed him; yea, I have made him.” A certain Kimchi remarks: - Come on Arach. I think it is related too. But as soon as I embark on a discription of that matter I suspect it will be designated “OFF TOPIC”. I have had enough experience and am getting well trained.But I agree with you that its important to know why the earth was found in the state it was which I take to be desolation, ruin, void, empty. The two words used there appear together in two other instances in Scripture which are associated with divine judgment and overthrow. The details of which in the Genesis case will probably be flagged as off topic. I think that the Bible is God communicating through man’s language concerning Himself and divine purpose. I think He did so in Genesis in a way which could reach people down through different millenia and of different cultures. I think He foreknew everything of the ages of different cultures and languages which would develop on earth. And I think He spoke in a way to convey the essentials of His nature and activities to the maximum amount of people. I didn’t say dictation. Though in some places dictation is evident, like in Jeremiah where the king destroyed the scroll and then Jeremiah had his servant re-write the entire scroll verbatim as before.But I can see an all powerful God supervising the writing of His prophet in admittedly a mysterious way, so that the words used are to convey shades of different meanings He wants to convey. This is part of the believer’s understanding of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. Demons are the dissembodied spirits of some form of pre-Adamic intelligent creatures. They lost their physical bodies. And details are probably off topic in this discussion. Angels are of the good sort and the bad sort. It is possible that the infrastructure of creation before the earth was made waste and void we could hardly comprehend in that it was so different from what we know as the world subject to mankind’s dominion.Other than faint hints of a that time the Bible has not given great detail to it. I think God has revealed to us the bare necessary things which we should know. There are many things in the universe which God has not explained to much about.I think that we are as infants in a crib. The parents put little toys on the crib to help develop the childs understanding. One day she may come to understand an automobile, a Personal Computer, a jet plane, a earthquake, a solar system, a galaxy. But at this early stage just some colorful blocks and funny shaped plastic toys.To some degree I feel man has to humble himself to receive what God will reveal to us at the stage we are in. But there is much more that we cannot digest at this time. So I cannot give great detail about the pre-Adamic universe. But I believe that another structure of a kingdom existed before things were restored and turned over to a new creature - man. The spiritual enemies of man are the remnants of that ancient time. I don’t know how God did it. But I think He will one day do something similar or worse in the future. No. I think they said “Egypt is waste and void. Maybe we better obey this God of Moses.” Job could have been refering to the flood of Noah. Job could have been refering to something before that. I lean away from thinking that Job was just using his imagination. I don’t know what this is suppose to mean, that He couldn’t look at what He was saying.I believe that the Scripture of Genesis is divinely inspired. And I don’t think there is anything wrong with people a thousands years ago reading it and understanding one thing and another people a thousand years latter going back to notice things in a more precise way. I don’t think it is wrong for another generation to go back to Genesis and say “What does it really say about that. Did He say BARA or did He say ASAH? ”You say “Everbody knew that BARA = ASAH and ASAH = BARA.” I say it is okay for latter generations to question why God had Moses use one word or the other in specific sentences. It is a matter of interpretation. And I don’t feel I have to buy yours that three days after there was day and night God created the sun.Had BARA been the word used for the fourth day lightbearers your case would be considerably stronger. You apply some common sense to ASAH in the case of meal preparation. I apply some common sense to ASAH in three typical solar days with no existing sun. He made the lightbearers may not mean that he CREATED them on day Four. I don’t think Job was just using his imagination. I think it was either the prophetic past or the prophetic future in which he was speaking. How does he know God overturns mountains and seals up stars and commands the sun not to give light? Latter God tells Job that he has spoken rightly about Him. Yes God did do those things. Or He showed Job He would in the future do those things.I don’t think Job was just giving imaginative musings. That too. Whoever then was responsible for God wanting to overturn the mountains and black out the sun must have learned a big lesson. Maybe !Then again maybe you’re making stuff up to assure yourself that the source of Genesis is of a lesser intelligence than yourself. You stand above the source, superior to the source, on a higher order of knowledge and wisdom than the source. I can’t see the word “CAN” in this passage. Can you? The only place I see your word CAN is where God does great things which CANNOT be searched and wonderful deeds which CANNOT be numbered. Yes it is a creation story. But in the story there is an unknown interval of time between verse 1 and verse 2. That is what I believe.All the details about creation are not given in Genesis. Other major themes of the Bible include other details elsewhere in the Bible then where you would expect everything about them to be discussed.In Psalm 78 the writer changes the order of the things according to the way he wants to discuss them. Verses 12 through 41 talks about God’s dealing with Israel in the wilderness. Then in verses 43 through 51 he goes back to speak of previous events while they were in Egypt.God can speak of creation in one part of His Scripture and then latter in Scripture allude to events left out of His general talk about creation. In it He sheds light on things which were only lightly touched in Genesis concerning judgment which rendered the earth without form and void.In the account of Barak’s victory over Sisera in Judges the battle is discribed in Judges 4:15. Latter in the song of Deborah in chapter 5 we learn of a decisive rain storm which greattly helped Barak to win the battle - 5:21. Judges 4 tells us of Barak's victory. Judges 5 tells us more detail about how victory came to pass.God can speak some things about an event and latter in Scripture fill in more details about that event. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : spellingEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : another spelling

quote:

---

it's a rather standard reading that god provided the light personally. look -- this is not a problem *i* created. it's just what the text says. you seem very eager to change the words on the page fit your ideology. i find that very disrespectful.

---

Do you yourself believe that God provided light from Himself? I mean do you believe that this light of the first day was, i.e., the light of the glory of God as was in the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Arach, I expected that evasion.
You express your opinion and belief about everything else. You know?I take Genesis as the oracles and word of God, true, holy, and sacred. I think the disrespect of the Hebrew Bible is coming from you rather than me.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Arach, Rather interesting theoligical issues with such a view. I would think that God is always shinning. It seems funny that His default position would be in darkness and that He would have to say "Let there be light" about Himself.So the view that the first light of day one is God. And then this eternal uncreated glory He extinguishes for a temporary artificial and created light.So your view is that the God Who exists before all things creates a world before Him. But it is not bathed in His light from the moment it springs into existence. God has to kind of turn Himself on - "Let there be light" to shine His light on this new world.Well, it is not altogether impossible. But I think it poses some theological perculiarities. But I do find it purposeful, one way or another, that the first light was not too distinct. But the further lightholders or lightbearers more specifically locate the light source.I think this definitely has some spiritual and moral relevance to the Bible. The way of the righteous is like the dawning of the day, growing brighter and brighter, it says somewhere in Proverbs.And of course God's utmost priorities in the Bible are with issues of moral and Divine / Human communion and fellowship.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Arach,On disrespect - I believe that Genesis is the true living God speaking to man.You believe that it is just some pseudo mythological religious writing and end each post with a huge Hebrew letter.I think I respect the Hebrew Bible more than you do with your showy huge Hebrew fonts.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Not impressed. I go to the Bible to find Yahweh.Guys like you go to the Bible to hide from Yahweh.King Saul's Hebrew was up to par as was Korah's and Jeroboam's and Ahab's. They came away from God's speaking totally in the dark.

That was not my only argument. It was a contributing factor.To those who were of ancient times God also said "And the Lord said, Because the people draws near with their mouth, And with their lips they honor Me, Yet they remove their hearts far from Me ..." (Isa. 29:13).So in the case of Korah, King Saul, and Ahab, though closer in time as you point out, they more than nullified this by being far away in their heart from God, though their lips could probably recite His oracles with very proper Hebrew accents and annunciation.

Then next time be careful before you accuse me of disrespecting the book that I stake my life and eternal destiny on.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Arach,Do you think that "became" is not a good translation in Genesis 1:2?
If not what would be your reasons?" But the earth became waste and emptiness" (Rcv)"Now the earth had become waste and wild ...." (Emphasized Bible - Rotherham)" ... (then) the earth was waste and void" (Peter von Bohlem)" But (then) the earth became waste ..." (August Dillman)" ... yet the earth became waste and empty" (Concordant Version)Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I did notthing of the kind. I asked you if you thought he was not aware that daylight and night were caused by the sun.I think that he was moved by the Spirit of God to write what he wrote. The process of inspiration is very mysterious to me. And at times the prophets probably didn't know the full import of what they were being moved to speak.The jist of this argument is that you say the text says God created the sun, moon, stars on the fourth day. I say that is not necessarily so according to the language expressions actually used.You say "Of course it is and you're chicken to admit it." I say "I don't have to say of course it is because it is not necessarily so if ASAH and BARA are not totally synonomous Hebrew words. Which they are NOT. Get over it."It very well could be that the man had a prophetic vision or a dream. He writes what he saw and he saw it. Seven visions may have been presented to him in which the basic creation and formation events were revealed to his sight.If he did not see the sun on days one through three but only a glowing and diffuse light and then noticed there distinct shapes, he could have said "He made the sun and the stars and the moon too."I don't know why you have a problem with that.Why would God have to say of Himself "Let there be light" on the first day. Did God turn Himself on as light for the day period and then dim Himself for the night period? Did He adjust Himself to not shine in the evening?You point out some problems with my interpretation. I think you could also consider some problems with yours."As for God His way is perfect" (Psalm 18:30)Did the God whose way is perfect have to discard the artificial light that He created after the third day? Did the God whose way is perfect speak forth a world waste, void, dark, ruined, and chaotic?But you say "No the Hebrew says God created the sun on day four. The green vegatation was using something else as a light source. Don't blame me. And admit that that is the only way to understand it, as illogical as it is."Well, I don't think your fourth day lighbearer creation is the only way to understand it. And as you use a little common sense in reading ASAH in the context of trimming a beard or preparing a meal, so I also use a little common sense in the making of the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day.

If it was God's own light that was the day light for three days then the question of whether you believe that was the Shekinah glory of God in the temple, IS PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE.And as for the robustness of certain physiological body parts, you were the one who jumped behind the irrelvancy of your personal beliefs, and at such a logical and relevant question.I think that if you believe there was no sun until day four than as a serious Hebrew Bible reader a logical alternative was that it was the Shekinah glory of God as shinned in the Holy of Holies.

Once again then:The word ASAH is used for dressing a calf for a meal as in (Gen 18.7,8 and Judges 13:15). The word ASAH is used for trimming one's beard in Second Samuel 19:25. In Duet. 21:12 it is used for the trimming of one's nails. In Esther 1:5 it is used for the preparation of a feast.The word ASAH is used in speaking of the cloths which God made for man (Genesis 3:21). It is used also in the making of cloths that man makes for himself (Exo. 28:2). It is usually used in working over something which already exists. It is sometimes meant as appointment as in the making is in the future: a multitude of descendents (Genesis 13:16).The word ASAH may be used in appointment in a more abstract sense like the making of a covenant between God and Israel (Gen. 9:12)..Now, why does not Strong's committee assign the English word CREATE to the definition of the Hebrew word ASAH? It assigns CREATE to the Hebrew word BARA. Why does it not use CREATE as a definition of ASAH?And I hope you won't just say that you know better than the Hebrew Chaldee Dictionary in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. They covered every single word in the Bible as to definition and usage. So I expect a little more than, "Well, you can't really use that Dictionary you know?"
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.